MPs to vote on terror bill after May polls

Legislation raising the time limit for which terror suspects may be detained without charge from 28 days to 42 is to get its delayed Commons second reading on April 1, the leader of the house, Harriet Harman, is expected to announce today. The new timetable for the government's counter-terrorism bill is likely to mean that key votes on the time limit - when ministers will face a backbench rebellion at report stage - will take place after the May local elections.

The announcement is being made as the Commons justice committee publishes a report calling for the government to withdraw the bill's provisions to hold coroner's inquests without a jury and hear intercept evidence in cases with national security implications.

Asked about the new timetable, Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty, said: "We hope that this delayed second reading will provide space for calmer reflection after the local elections and allow the government to join the cross-party consensus around alternative counter-terror policies."

The Tory security spokesman, Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, yesterday said a claim by the counter-terrorism minister, Lord West of Spithead, that the Conservatives supported an extension of the 28-day limit was seriously misleading. "We absolutely do not," she said. "The government already has powers, should it need them, in an emergency. We do not support this legislation."

West said on the BBC's Today programme: "What I'm delighted about now is that the debate is going away from 'is there going to be an occasion when we need more than 28 days to hold to make sure we stop terrorism?' This is much better and I am much happier than I was before. The debate is 'how should we do this?', and not 'is there a requirement?'."

The critical report today from the Commons justice committee calls for withdrawal of the bill's provision for ministers to order coroners to sit without a jury in cases involving national security. Part six of the bill gives the home secretary the power to certify inquests as having national security implications. The effect of the certificate will be to ensure that the inquests are held in secret, in front of a security-cleared coroner.

The committee's chairman, Alan Beith, urged that the proposal be dropped: "The actions of government are regularly questioned at inquests and ministers should not be in a position to choose the coroner, or whether a jury will be present."